Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance13 mins ago
Who Rules This Country, The Government On The People's Behalf, The Government Who Make The Laws Or The Judges Who's Job It Is To Enforce The Law?
143 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To borrow a phrase the judges used (albeit about David Davis, rather than Gromit), Gromit's figures may be technically accurate but it's a point that is divorced from reality. The majority who voted, voted to Leave. I don't see why the abstainers have anything to do with it per se, certainly not in attempting to question the legitimacy of the result. I suppose there's a principle that a minimum turnout threshold ought to be necessary for a referendum to be valid but, to my mind, this one crossed it handsomely.
Again, though, it is a result in a referendum that wasn't meant to be legally binding, and did not give Government the power to override Parliamentary legislation on the EU unilaterally. Basically, that's what the judgement says in a nutshell: Parliament is sovereign over domestic law; this decision will change domestic law; therefore it's up to Parliament to enact this decision. Or not, of course, but political reality is almost certain to force people's hand. I don't see any reason to believe that Leavers have changed their mind -- at least, not in numbers large enough that the result on June 23rd can be declared void. Hence, Brexit is still a practical certainty.
Again, though, it is a result in a referendum that wasn't meant to be legally binding, and did not give Government the power to override Parliamentary legislation on the EU unilaterally. Basically, that's what the judgement says in a nutshell: Parliament is sovereign over domestic law; this decision will change domestic law; therefore it's up to Parliament to enact this decision. Or not, of course, but political reality is almost certain to force people's hand. I don't see any reason to believe that Leavers have changed their mind -- at least, not in numbers large enough that the result on June 23rd can be declared void. Hence, Brexit is still a practical certainty.
Just as a side point: presumably even Leave voters would accept that there has to be a theoretical minimum turnout threshold for a vote to be valid: if, by some hilarious mix-up, everyone in the country forgot that the vote wasJune 23rd and tried on June 24th except for Nigel Farage, I assume the 100% vote in favour of Leave in those circumstances wouldn't have been so dogmatically asserted as the will of the people? This didn't happen, of course; instead, we enjoyed turnout levels exceeding at least three of the last five general elections.
I wish the 28% who didn't vote had done so, all the same. Not necessarily because they would have swung the vote the other way, but more because it's still sad to see such high levels of disengagement with democracy in general and this decision in particular. I think we're all agreed that it was rather a big one.
I wish the 28% who didn't vote had done so, all the same. Not necessarily because they would have swung the vote the other way, but more because it's still sad to see such high levels of disengagement with democracy in general and this decision in particular. I think we're all agreed that it was rather a big one.
// Avatar Image
youngmafbog
Most likely.
Personally I have no issue with Parliament being involved, in fact if you read through my back posts I suggested cross-party 'negotiations' with the EU. And that is what this lawyer is trying to do. She is not trying to derail Brexit as some of the sour grape munchers seem to think. Listen to her talk on Sky News. // I cannot see why it appears necessary that we negotiate with the EU, our decision is to leave the EU. Just get on with it ASAP.
youngmafbog
Most likely.
Personally I have no issue with Parliament being involved, in fact if you read through my back posts I suggested cross-party 'negotiations' with the EU. And that is what this lawyer is trying to do. She is not trying to derail Brexit as some of the sour grape munchers seem to think. Listen to her talk on Sky News. // I cannot see why it appears necessary that we negotiate with the EU, our decision is to leave the EU. Just get on with it ASAP.
My goodness me. What an awful lot of tosh has been written on here. The facts:
1. The referendum result was never promised to be adhered to. This is an article written back in January. It is one off many which existed prior to voting:
'We might start with the EU Referendum Act, which received royal assent just before Christmas. It sets out the referendum rules, so could be expected to define the effect of a vote either way. Alas, it does not: it makes no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect.
That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result.'
https:/
2. The judges are following a legal process. Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations, or do a lot more research.
3. This is not a loophole. It was clear prior to the vote that the issue of legality was a potential stumbling block.
Seems to me the sour grapes are being chewed by those who voted to leave because they, rather naively, thought it would be a simple process. We haven't even started to 'negotiate' with the EU member states yet, in any meaningful way.
1. The referendum result was never promised to be adhered to. This is an article written back in January. It is one off many which existed prior to voting:
'We might start with the EU Referendum Act, which received royal assent just before Christmas. It sets out the referendum rules, so could be expected to define the effect of a vote either way. Alas, it does not: it makes no provision as to the referendum’s legal effect.
That is because, strictly speaking, it has no legal effect. It will be purely advisory and, in law, the government could simply ignore the result.'
https:/
2. The judges are following a legal process. Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations, or do a lot more research.
3. This is not a loophole. It was clear prior to the vote that the issue of legality was a potential stumbling block.
Seems to me the sour grapes are being chewed by those who voted to leave because they, rather naively, thought it would be a simple process. We haven't even started to 'negotiate' with the EU member states yet, in any meaningful way.
Theoretically Farage's 100% vote does count as the will of the people if it is the only one cast, because the rest couldn't be bothered to turn up at the right place on the right day and vote. In reality there may well be a lower limit folk feel uneasy to base a decision on but in practice that simply isn't going to happen, so the issue is moot. Maybe we should establish a minimum of, say, 10% of voters need to vote, when we change the rules to make the people's decision legally binding ?
Do you have anything constructive to add Naomi, or are you just slinging insults around?
What don't you understand about it being a legal process? You claimed in one post that Judges don't act on their own and went on to cite Gina Miller as bringing the matter to court. She certainly did this but it was the judges who decided (independently) that her actions demonstrated that due legal process had not been followed. You might want to read the case itself:
http://
and take particular notice of item 30:
'Another settled feature of UK constitutional law is that, as a general rule applicable in normal circumstances, the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties on behalf of the United Kingdom are regarded as matters for the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative powers.' Note 'for the Crown'. Not the majority of the public. Not Parliament.
What don't you understand about it being a legal process? You claimed in one post that Judges don't act on their own and went on to cite Gina Miller as bringing the matter to court. She certainly did this but it was the judges who decided (independently) that her actions demonstrated that due legal process had not been followed. You might want to read the case itself:
http://
and take particular notice of item 30:
'Another settled feature of UK constitutional law is that, as a general rule applicable in normal circumstances, the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties on behalf of the United Kingdom are regarded as matters for the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative powers.' Note 'for the Crown'. Not the majority of the public. Not Parliament.
The legality is only a potential stumbling block if some who reject the will of the people trigger it as a test case. Otherwise, in a reasonable world, the issue isn't triggered, as everyone knows which side won and which lost the vote and it is simply not gentlemanly (or ladylike ?) to try to thwart that.
Zacs-Master, //are you just slinging insults around?//
So it’s ok for you to say everyone else is talking ‘tosh’ but when I say you’re talking ‘tosh’, suddenly ‘tosh’ becomes an insult. I see.
//Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations……Do you have anything constructive to add Naomi, //
I’ve added rather more constructive comments to this thread than that!
So it’s ok for you to say everyone else is talking ‘tosh’ but when I say you’re talking ‘tosh’, suddenly ‘tosh’ becomes an insult. I see.
//Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations……Do you have anything constructive to add Naomi, //
I’ve added rather more constructive comments to this thread than that!
"I don’t think the ‘Leavers’ ever considered that there would be ‘terms’. They voted to leave – and that meant ‘leave’, with as we were promised, no 'ifs and buts'. "
Those are terms though. If we just refuse to negotiate, then our trade defaults to WTO rules.
Fine, you might say. But the way in which we exit was not on the ballot paper - it is no good trying to interpret the popular vote on this matter.
Those are terms though. If we just refuse to negotiate, then our trade defaults to WTO rules.
Fine, you might say. But the way in which we exit was not on the ballot paper - it is no good trying to interpret the popular vote on this matter.
I had the decency to post my reasons for calling certain comments 'tosh'. I see you didn't.
To state that the legal process is overturning democracy is just such a crass misguided and ignorant remark, I couldn't think of any other word for it than 'tosh'. My link, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring, proves why.
To state that the legal process is overturning democracy is just such a crass misguided and ignorant remark, I couldn't think of any other word for it than 'tosh'. My link, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring, proves why.
If you haven't seen it before, some ABers might find the linked analysis interesting.
It seems to me, at the very least MPs (regardless of their own opinions) should represent the wishes of their constituencies.
The Referendum wasn't run by Constituency of course, but some analysis has been done and projections made.
This suggests that:
421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave
Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave
152 constituencies probably voted to Remain.
Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain.
Here is a Link:
https:/
It seems to me, at the very least MPs (regardless of their own opinions) should represent the wishes of their constituencies.
The Referendum wasn't run by Constituency of course, but some analysis has been done and projections made.
This suggests that:
421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave
Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave
152 constituencies probably voted to Remain.
Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain.
Here is a Link:
https:/
Zacs-Master, I had the decency to post your tosh. Here it is again.
//Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations//
//To state that the legal process is overturning democracy is just such a crass misguided and ignorant remark,//
Not at all. ‘Crass’ is the now the distinct possibility that the will of the people will be ridden roughshod over. If the government doesn’t succeed in its forthcoming appeal, this judgement, instigated by people who refuse to accept the result of a democratic referendum, will succeed in overturning democracy.
//Those who think this overturns democracy might wish to either sit in a darkened room and contemplate the stupidity of their postulations//
//To state that the legal process is overturning democracy is just such a crass misguided and ignorant remark,//
Not at all. ‘Crass’ is the now the distinct possibility that the will of the people will be ridden roughshod over. If the government doesn’t succeed in its forthcoming appeal, this judgement, instigated by people who refuse to accept the result of a democratic referendum, will succeed in overturning democracy.
Indeed Zacs.
And if it comes to the point of MPs voting in a pro/anti manner (I trust and hope it will not) I can see an argument for even Brexit MPs voting in line with 'Remain' if there is a convincing case that their constituents voted so. (e.g. Chris Grayling)
Even so, the analysis is pretty robust in suggesting the Referendum result would be more than ratified by a Constituency based view.
And if it comes to the point of MPs voting in a pro/anti manner (I trust and hope it will not) I can see an argument for even Brexit MPs voting in line with 'Remain' if there is a convincing case that their constituents voted so. (e.g. Chris Grayling)
Even so, the analysis is pretty robust in suggesting the Referendum result would be more than ratified by a Constituency based view.
/// They voted to leave – and that meant ‘leave’, with as we were promised, no 'ifs and buts'. " ///
Quite correct.
If a fishmonger was found to be selling bad fish, and his customers got together to vote if they should ban the shop, and the majority won, they wouldn't expect their leader to then go back to the fishmonger and say "we will stay with you if you sell us your fish at half price, you then deliver it to our doors, etc etc.
Quite correct.
If a fishmonger was found to be selling bad fish, and his customers got together to vote if they should ban the shop, and the majority won, they wouldn't expect their leader to then go back to the fishmonger and say "we will stay with you if you sell us your fish at half price, you then deliver it to our doors, etc etc.
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
Crosswords81 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.